Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)
OK. The palace garden shot is indeed the end of a motion-and-pan sequence, but that end shot lasts for ~2 seconds. So I suppose it's debatable how bad the crop is for 2 secs, but 2 secs should be long enough that an observant viewer will notice IMHO.
Also, there are at least 2 other static shots that follow shortly thereafter whose composition could also be destroyed w/ a tighter crop. On the old R1 version, the zoom-and-crop does indeed ruin one of the two as it nearly completely crops off Pu Yi's brother from a table set w/ food (at the far right side of the frame), except for his arm reaching out for the food and a little bit of his face (and there's nobody else that can be considered a subject of interest at the table). I can only imagine how much worse the 2:1 crop on the Criterion version will look unless Storaro only lops off the far left side of the image. But even if Storaro adjusted that crop accordingly for the DVD, how can that really be viewed as originally composed for 2:1?? If he has to pan the frame back-and-forth between shots to get a halfway decent 2:1 crop, then he is mostly applying revisionism, not simply reverting back to the originally composed vision.
And there was the other static shot (I mentioned) that wasn't particularly noticeably bad (in framing) on the old R1 version, but I could definitely see being ruined somewhat w/ a 2:1 crop. That shot immediately follows the garden shot and is a talking heads shot of Pu Yi and his company in the same scene from different perspective. It basically consists of 3 heads spaced out very nicely across the wide frame seemingly following the rule of thirds (particularly if one opened it up a little more to the original uncropped 2.35:1 frame) w/ Pu Yi in the middle foreground, but off-centered at a 1/3 point, his brother at the other/left far end somewhat out-of-focus -- but still actively important to the scene (and clearly engaging to the viewer w/ facial expressions, etc), including having one spoken line -- and his passive (but still aesthetically significant) servant/guard well behind him flanking the other side, set between Pu Yi and the frame's right edge.
And there are clearly more scenes/static shots where a 2:1 crop would ruin the composition (or at least be too tight to be ideal), judging from my old R1 version. For instance,
while the shot that Mike Frezon linked earlier might not be ruined in large part because it's the end of a pan (and only lasts a brief second) and has more space to afford the crop than other shots, the sequence that follows shortly thereafter in that same scene would indeed be marred at least somewhat (compared to the original 2.35:1 shot) by a 2:1 crop even if Storaro pans the frame and only lops off one side. If that shot is center cropped (as one would normally expect if truly originally composed at 2:1), then it would completely ruin the shot as one of two key subjects in the scene (ie. Peter O'Tool's character) gets cut off the frame on one side. And note also that between this scene and the earlier one w/ Pu Yi's brother at the food table (on the other side of the frame), the 2:1 cropped frame would indeed have to be panned and scanned and not be left w/ one fixed crop for the entire film.
So yeah, I'm quite convinced now that TLE was indeed originally composed for 2.35:1, *NOT* 2:1 as Storaro claimed in that Univision document. Maybe he did compose *some* shots w/ 2:1 in mind for whatever reason, but it's pretty evident that at least some shots were originally composed for 2.35:1, if not most/all.
_Man_
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong
Well, I didn't get around to doublechecking over the weekend to see if those are indeed static shots. Anyone else check?
And yeah, pretty odd that Storaro employed 2 different crops for the palace garden shot. Neither crop works for me (just as I surmised), and depending on whether your display has any overscan (and how much), you might end up w/ both the emperor (and his company) and the women on the other side of the pond completely missing from the visible picture for the extended "TV" cut -- and how ironic is that(???). I wonder if Storaro panned the crop for the theatrical cut though considering the women on the other side are completely missing -- or was it a panned shot anyway?
And also just as I surmised, the crop of the shot w/ Pu Yi in the human carriage looks pretty bad as well.
I wonder what other shots/scenes have suffered from the 2.0:1 crops -- and which one is worse on which version.
Also, kinda odd that not only are the crops different, but the color accuracy and (opening up of) shadows are also different between the 2 cuts. And judging from the various screenshot comparisons, I can't even tell whether one cut looks consistently more accurate or has more opened up shadows either -- though it does look like the more compressed extended cut is blowing highlights more regularly.
Anyway, any other news on the eventual Image release? Will that definitely also be using the Criterion transfer(s)? Given all the different compromises involved w/ the available versions, maybe I should just wait for the Image release. Even if it turns out to be the same Criterion transfer(s), at least I won't have to shell out >$40 for that. I guess I could also give it a rent to see for myself of course, that is, if I can find it for rent.
Really a shame...
_Man_
|
Oh, and The South Bank Show isn't a BBC programme, btw.
